I understand that all of my authorisations have been kept up to date and I was forced to leave my stamp behind when I was sacked from the company. I shall be very annoyed if I find out that my authorisations and signature are being used to certify work which I have not carried out.

I'm no expert, but is it really just a "stamp" that certifies work on aircraft?

I thought there must be more oversight than that, I hope there is - otherwise I might have to rethink the idea of the first holiday abroad in ages!

Surely, aircraft workers have to be supervised by a competent person. That competent person, surely has to be authorised by an authorising body, who is regulated by the CAA? Please tell me that someone can't just "forge" signatures and use someone else's stamp

Or was was just a weekends worth of beer talking, because that seems quite a serious accusation?

With literally hundreds of job cards to sign and then countersign, there may well be a stamp involved. I'm sure there would be a space for the actual oversigning engineer's signature or, maybe the signature is part of the stamp, which Sam seems to state. It's a bit like the Quality Control [QC] stamp. Any use of Sam's, or any other of the engineers' "stamps would simply be fraud. As an ex RAF engineer, I would have insisted that the stamp was destroyed in my presence.

You don't want to imagine what could happen if something went catastrophically wrong during an engine ground run which left joe public and volunteers with loss of life or limb. No insurance in the world would cover the compensation or litigation against the Trust and The Health and Safety Executive would drag the trustees through the courts under section 3 of the H&S Act.[Failure to ensure no harm to third parties].

On a much more positive note, see Funtera's thread on a recent visit to XM655 at Wellesbourne. Just off the M40 and relatively central England. Invest your pennies in membership of MaPS and you can visit and go into the cockpit any Saturday. Or even get involved with their work on and off the jet. [It's actually free to visit and then for a small donation you can go into the cockpit as well, but you get the picture - you're getting something for your "buck"]

As I've said many times before, the guys and gals there do a brilliant job of keeping a Vulcan alive and kicking. More than can be said for the powers that be in Doncaster. They are on a different planet

I'm no expert, but is it really just a "stamp" that certifies work on aircraft?

I thought there must be more oversight than that, I hope there is - otherwise I might have to rethink the idea of the first holiday abroad in ages!

Surely, aircraft workers have to be supervised by a competent person. That competent person, surely has to be authorised by an authorising body, who is regulated by the CAA? Please tell me that someone can't just "forge" signatures and use someone else's stamp

Or was was just a weekends worth of beer talking, because that seems quite a serious accusation?

Blimey Paramania!! Don't mean to offend either but this is only your fifth post and it's astounding how your use of English grammar has improved over your previous posts...........................!!

I'm no expert, but is it really just a "stamp" that certifies work on aircraft?

The stamp is effectively the signature of the engineers who carry out the work and inspected it as they include a unique number that relates to the person involved, together with him writing his surname in capitals, if the copies of the job sheets I have from a day spent working on 558 are anything to go by. As such there would have to be a record of who that stamp number applies to, and one would expect that record to be updated when an engineer moves on, or the stamp destroyed and new ones created for engineers joining. Without that, anyone could use an 'old' stamp and write the name of the previous engineer. However as those 'signatures' are also dated, and presumably (surely!) the dates people leave are recorded, it wouldn't take much to bring to light fraudulent use in the event of a problem and subsequent investigation.

The trust is considering the operation of other loaned aircraft next year? Who is going to look after these loaned aircraft? There are no engineers left in the employment of the trust. I understand that all of my authorisations have been kept up to date and I was forced to leave my stamp behind when I was sacked from the company. I shall be very annoyed if I find out that my authorisations and signature are being used to certify work which I have not carried out.

Now now Samual what are you trying to insinuate, you'll have the Quality Police after me!

As far as I remember WE were made redundant and not sacked and as for your auths, they are not up to date. Finally why do I need to use your stamp, when I can stamp everything myself

Redundant or sacked makes no difference in reality, they are just the same words for meaning you guys were "C" stores to be tossed around and discarded when management couldn't afford to keep you on the payroll. Last I knew was that none of the remaining trust members have designated themselves surplus to requirements and taken volunteer roles rather than salaries. I reckon that would change the vibe on this forum completely!

There's not very many of us left either posting or lurking, but, for argument's sake, what would happen if you took your bat and ball and buggered off completely leaving the trust without anyone "qualified" to bring the jet alive? It seems they really have put all their eggs into one "Taff" basket.

And also for arguments sake,could the CAA even at this late stage grant an "Air Worthiness" ticket for a one off ferry flight and get 558 out of DSA before it becomes a fire practice wreck and fly it to somewhere that would give it a long term future WITHOUT the Trust being involved ??I would pay money to assist in this outcome as would many others who have withdrawn financial support since the final flight debacle !